Words: Tracy Ross
This article was originally published on Outside Online.
In April, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, a hunting education and advocacy organization, circulated a press release offering a $500 reward “for reports or information leading to a conviction of those responsible for illegal trail construction on public lands.” In other words, the national non-profit placed what amounted to a bounty on mountain bikers building illegal trails.
The Colorado chapter of BHA sent the press release directly to two publications: Boulder’s Daily Camera newspaper and the Mountain Ear, which services Nederland, a town 18 miles up Boulder Canyon. The bounty technically applies to the entire state of Colorado, but the memo indicated that it was targeted at trailbuilders in the national forests around Boulder and Nederland.
Both towns are hubs for outdoor recreation. The Roosevelt and Arapaho national forests, which comprise 160,000 acres of public land, offer ample hiking, skiing, hunting, and fishing. They are the country’s third-most visited forests, with an estimated 7.5 million annual users. Nederland in particular is popular with mountain bikers: the parking lot for the West Magnolia trail system, a prominent network of singletrack, overflows with cars every weekend from late spring to mid-fall, and the nearby Front Range trails see ample bike traffic as well.
But in the vicinity, like just about anywhere with a mountain bike scene, locals have built secret, illegal trails. These see far less traffic than the sanctioned trails. I spoke to a local resident who builds illegal trails, who wished to remain anonymous for this story. He told me he enjoys the creativity, solo time in nature, and challenge that comes from cutting the clandestine paths.
There’s a long history of social trail-building in the Nederland area, says Josh Harrod, president of the all-volunteer mountain-bike-focused Nederland Area Trails Organization (NATO). “I would say 90 percent-plus of the trails we use up here started as social trails—the elk and deer ran through, then hikers followed, then bikers followed suit,” he says. “Social trail construction is kind of the fabric of the local trail community. NATO doesn’t sanction it, but I don’t think it’s ever going to stop.”
It was these trails that interested BHA. The
press release read, “For years we’ve been hearing from public lands agency staff and our members that illegal trail building is rampant in many areas of the state and proliferating. Elk herds and other wildlife are suffering as a result. [The $500 reward for turning illegal trailbuilders in] is one small step we can take to try and help moderate and hopefully deter additional illegal trail construction activity.”
Local mountain bikers were angry. “Those guys are out there walking around with guns. When they put a bounty out, it’s a bad look,” says the trail-builder I spoke with.
Bikers felt the reaction was overblown. The trail-builder I spoke with describes his renegade trails as harmless labors of love that only he and a few friends know about—could they really be getting in the way of wildlife? And why was one backcountry user group launching what felt like an offensive towards another?
The trails in the Nederland area are, like most trails across the mountain West, more crowded than ever. You could argue thatIn their press release, BHA cited a quote from Gary Moore, executive director of the Colorado Mountain Bike Association, saying that bikers’ options are limited in the state. And popular renegade trails do occasionally get retroactively sanctioned by the Forest Service, according to multiple mountain bike groups.
Sanctioning new trail construction is a complicated process that can take decades, says Meara McQuain, executive director of the Headwaters Trails Alliance in Grand County, Colorado. If the HTA wants to build a new trail on federal land, it takes its idea to the relevant governing land agency. If the agency is interested, they’ll do a public survey to determine engagement. Then, the trail goes through a process mandated by the National Environmental Policies Act to evaluate its potential impact, with scientists and researchers—including archaeologists, hydrologists, botanists, and wildlife biologists—weighing in. The study findings are released for public comment, and if anyone protests, the project goes into a public objection period. The federal agency makes modifications, if necessary, and the leadership of the land management agency makes the final decision. All of this can take anywhere from three to 15 years, says McQuain. (The process looks different for state and private land.)
Research shows that trails can impact wildlife in dramatic ways. In the 1980s, a Colorado State University biologist named Bill Alldredge started
studying elk near Vail, as ski resorts and trail systems started expanding. He and his team radio-collared female elk with new calves and then had humans hike through their preferred grounds until the cows showed signs of disturbance like standing up or walking away. Of the elk he studied, about 30 percent of their calves died when their mothers were disturbed by humans—and when the disturbances stopped, the population recovered.
A
2016 review of wildlife studies spanning four decades found that human traffic on trails forces animals to flee, limiting their feeding time and forcing them to expend valuable energy. And a
study out of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, from earlier this year found that mountain biking ranked second only to ATV use in disturbing elk populations in a 120,000-acre parcel of land east of town.
Whether all illegally built trails negatively impact wildlife, we don’t know. But Kriss Hess, the BHA member who sent the press release to Boulder and Nederland papers, argues that while many of these trails might only see a little traffic in their early years, it’s not uncommon for them to eventually wind up on mapping apps and grow in popularity, impacting wildlife years down the line.
“We’re not trying to be aggressive with this, but we are extremely concerned about the
population declines we’re seeing across the state in elk and mule deer and other populations,” says Brien Webster, BHA’s program manager and Colorado and Wyoming coordinator. “Our wildlife and land management agencies are maxed when it comes to capacity, so it’s extremely difficult for them to post up and stop riders from accessing an illegal trail,” says Webster. They’re hoping the bounty might help the agencies manage the issue.
BHA also hopes to create and distribute maps and other educational materials that might help different user groups better understand how elk see and use a landscape. In August, they released a 15-page “
Illegal Trails Memo” with maps showing critical wildlife habitat and national conservation areas with social trails built through them. BHA is also considering placing educational signage at existing trailheads in areas with high rider concentration where illegal trailbuilding has occurred.
But the Boulder Ranger District has no formal or informal agreement with BHA, and it would be illegal for BHA to do any kind of trail maintenance, add signage, or install cameras, according to Reid Armstrong, public affairs specialist for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests. Armstrong also pointed out that several recent bills have increased the Boulder Ranger District’s funding and that they are focusing their efforts where they feel they are most urgently needed, specifically on infrastructure projects and wildfire recovery and mitigation.
And Wendy Sweet, executive director of the Boulder Mountain Bike Alliance, said that publishing maps of illegal trails may have the opposite of the desired effect. “If the mountain bike community sees this memo, the first thing they will do is want to check [those trails] out,” she says. Sweet had multiple meetings with BHA members prior to the publishing of this memo to talk about how all of the various stakeholders in Boulder County could work together to create trails safe for wildlife, and felt the release was in bad faith. Plenty of other factors place strain on wildlife, like development in the wilderness-urban interface, increasing backcountry use across all user groups, wildfire, and a changing climate.
Since releasing the bounty, Webster says, nobody has been turned in. Instead, “BHA has had some really good conversations with folks within the mountain bike community who are trying to address this in a meaningful way,” he says. “It has helped us think about our objective, and to focus more on education than the bounty aspect.”
Aaron Kindle, director of sporting advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation, thinks BHA isn’t being heavy-handed enough. “What happens when someone says, ‘My actions don’t count in that spot; I’ll do what I want.’ What if other folks started seeing those guys never getting punished?” he says. “The beauty of having public lands is that we’re all responsible for taking care of these landscapes.”
Builders go out and build trails in good terrain. Hunters go out and hunt in good terrain. Now there is a clash and we will see how it shakes out.
Wildlife get pushed out of areas with heavy recreational use or get they get heavily stressed, in most cases. This is a great study on it, which is cited nearly 500 times:
esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/1051-0761%282003%2913%5B951%3AWRTRAA%5D2.0.CO%3B2
Hunters use designated hunting areas within designated hunting seasons. These seasons do not correspond with when calving seasons are (calving happens in the spring and summer, hunting generally happens in the fall). Other recreation forms are not legally constrained by season. Mortality of wildlife is highest in their first year of life. If recreational activities can increase the chance that young animals won't get enough food, then the mortality will be higher as a direct result of recreational activity proximity. This is why hunters are concerned that recreational impacts are being overlooked in important calving areas.
It's important to look at both sides here. I ride loamers here on the shore. It's awesome. If these loamers happened to go through critical fawning habitat for local blacktail deer, then maybe we shouldn't ride those trails! What's wrong with that? Gut reactions here are the wrong reactions.
They constantly complain about crazy trophy hunter red mist maga ammosexuals ruining their hobby and having zero respect for conservation.
SO...not really all or even most hunters have any clue about conservation.
...to be fair, that sound kinda like me complaining about the shuttle enduro bros yelling in the woods while blasting their bluetooth, so I guess they're f*ckin everywhere. EW.
It is easy to conceptually care about wildlife habitat and protection, but most people in cities really don't care to the extent they will lobby and advocate for their protection, much less give money to do so.
I buy a hunting/fishing license every year even if I don't end up using it... that money is basically a wildlife tax.
Thank you for your call to reason and facts
At least in Idaho, you can’t just drive and ATV all over the mountains and straying off fire roads on an ATV would be a pretty bad idea for your own safety. You have to hike to get to the good hunting areas. That’s not to say people don’t try and road hunt, but those people aren’t usually successful.
I’ll also point out that a lot of the research that suggests that hunting is beneficial to wildlife populations is classic bad science. I could go on and on about that, but I’ll spare everyone.
@dontcoast Just do some digging around Google Scholar on the subject. Think about it this way. Most of the folks doing wildlife research are wildlife biologists. Wildlife biologists typically get in to that field because they love to hunt. If I was asked to do research regarding whether or not sex was good for you, the answer would definitely be “yes it is… it very much is”.
I personally am not against some illegal trail building, but I think if we socially sanction illegal trails in areas reserved for wildlife we start having the same effect on wild populations that irresponsible/illegal hunters do.
Especially when a whole heap of trails got taken away by a golf course development that went bust, but thats a while other story.
Most of the hunters I see aren't hunting for food and don't care about conservation. MAGA has ruined hunting because now most of the camo crowd hates environmentalists and anything perceived to be "green". This stupidity creates a natural hatred towards cyclists from hunters, and alot of this is just hunters blaming trail builders for the devastating effects of global warming on wildlife. Because the Fox News watching hunters don't believe the science.
As somebody that puts a lot of time into building harder trails and features on public land I get your point all too well but it's getting better.
Likelihood is we will get a black with double diamond options at Idaho Springs next year.
The cognitive dissonance is absolutely deafening. You’re concerned that trail building is causing the elk to suffer? And what is it exactly that your sport does to the elk?
www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-return-of-the-elk-59755105
You need a large population of elk to sustain hunting. Hunters want to hunt, so you need to have numbers that support that (meaning conservation).
EDIT: I may have spoke too soon. This seems legit but would have more weight if issued by Conservation groups instead of hunters.
"Of the elk he studied, about 30 percent of their calves died when their mothers were disturbed by humans—and when the disturbances stopped, the population recovered."
I am both a mountain bikers and hunter/fly fisher. I am trying to see this from both sides. As a MTBer, I want more trail access, but what I don't want is random people building trails in the forest in elk/deer calving habitat.
www.backcountryhunters.org
I spend long days hiking around reclaimed mine disturbances in National Forest land on the western slope for work, all year round. The areas I go to are wilderness-adjacent; far fewer roads, trails and people in general. People from all over the country spend a lot of money to come and hunt there, and from Labor Day through the autumn most of the people you see are wearing camo and orange. Clearly there are elk there, but I rarely see any. My anecdotal experience is that the population density of elk is far less compared to the front range.
My conjecture is that the major selection pressure on elk is hunters - they appear to give zero f*cks about anything else.
Also, hunters have to be 1 - 2 miles away from roads, are they bushwhacking that far or finding a trail? What about the hunters that use ATVs or ebikes to get further off the road?
Sounds like someone built a trail near some hunters honey pot and they're mad about it.
All sorts of people choose to hunt for all sorts of reasons, and I'm sure that some hunters are also interested in conservation, but the notion that a hunting advocacy group (like Backcountry Anglers and Hunters) is primarily concerned with "conservation" is hard to swallow - they're concerned with conserving herds of animals they like to hunt, so they can hunt them.
Learn more at www.backcountryhunters.org/mission_and_values
Salt Lake ski traffic has been building for years, but hit the logarithmic part of the curve 5 years ago. The resorts just aren't worth the fight anymore.
Your ignorance is shocking. Do some research, then do some more. Hunting, killing, and population control is the major donor and protector of wildlife in North America.
Bud, there's no way around suffering and eventual death for all living beings. I'm talking about the ambient stress of strange people on machines whizzing by daily in protected reserves. Even if you're as thoughtful on your MTB as possible, there are places you shouldn't ride.
BTW, if I were an elk and I wanted to minimize suffering, I'd happily be taken out by a long gun over the other options.
Would you support a tax on all sales of bikes or bike accessories that funds wildlife conservation? And an annual pass to ride on trails. Because currently, that is what funds the State Fish and Game departments all over the United States.
I love mountain biking, but I don't feel like the community in general cares about natural resources beyond the trail systems. I would say the same thing for most outdoor users though.
I am going to agree to disagree here. Realistically the MTB community seems to only care about land issues tat impact trails. As a whole, fishers/hunters seem to care about the ecosystem as a whole, at least the conservation groups.
I love mountain biking but most MTBers I know care little for access or conservation beyond the activity. Most don't even care to follow trail etiquette.
We've had a proposal for a DH specific area that was presented to the FS 10 years ago. Just this year they released "scoping doc" to evaluate it. But this literally just approves an illegal trail 1mi and no new trails to be added. Theres at least 1 additional trail already there that they likely will just want to remove. Not to mention this land has been extensively logged the last couple years. Why can't we have more trails? 10 years for that!? Patience is running out.
I for one want more difficult trails, especially to match the capabilities of our bikes. All of our trails are old game, horse, foot or motorcycle trails put in 30+ years ago, generally illegally. They are fun, but certainly could be better for mountain bikes. Even with a lot of maintenance (which I do a lot of) they have poor alignment for drainage and almost no mountain bike features. And they are continually trashed by free range cows.
So how are we as mountain bikers in Colorado supposed to have anything progressive or new legally? I don't see a way. By the time my proposal (created 5 years ago) gets a go ahead it'll take 20 years and I'll be 50. It'll take a couple years to build and I will likely barely be able to ride it after. Or I can build it now and ride it for the next 10 years before it gets shut down.
I understand there needs to be a process. Wildlife do need habitat too and I respect that. But there needs to be a balance.
Agree about the rest
I'm happy to meet and talk to you about BMA and the Boulder Ranger District. The problem has nothing to do the type of trail systems and everything to do with the U.S. Forest Service's lack of capacity to move forward with anything. In 2013 BMA got a grant to fund a trail planning in West Mag. This plan included a downhill trail off of Tennessee Mountain. The West Magnolia Trail plan has been stalled for 5 years because CPW has a concern about an elk migration corridor - one that includes Rock & Roots and Schoolbus so those trail remain non-system, let alone any new building above Hobbit.
BMA has been prepared to advocate for all the trails at LHOHV this year, but despite another planning grant secured by COHVCO the USFS was unable to participate in that planning process and it hasn't even started. They have asked for an extension to that grant.
With the pressure from this memo on illegal trails near Pinewood, CPW pressured BMA to apply for a planning grant for Johnny Park. The new Boulder Ranger District head ranger told me that even if there was a grant, they don't have the capacity to anything in this area and would not sign a letter of support.
It's not that the process create trail systems takes to long in Boulder County, or that we are "asking for the wrong kinds of trails." The process is broken and then groups like BHA say that any trail that's not system shouldn't be there, even though most of the areas have not had a NEPA process in at least 20 years.
As for the rest of the land mangers in Boulder and BMA's efforts, I'll just leave this here: www.bouldermountainbike.org/bikeban
I've spent a good amount of time riding in BC (on a trail bike). Their technical trails in general are more engaging to me. Steeper rock features and drops where you have to control your brake control and body position are what gets me excited to ride.
The bike you choose to ride it on is yours. I ride a 140 trail bike at the bike park, it doesn't matter the trail. But I could be more creative on a 180mm bike. The point is to have choices and the ability to express yourself on a variety of trails from XC to freeride. The XC side has been well represented in Colorado.
Most new trails being built are beginner friendly, which I don't necessarily see much of an issue with in isolation, but considering we have another forest with 100s of miles of flow trail within a 15min drive, is kindof annoying. The USFS rangers seem frustrated and conclude that mountain bikers coming here just want to ride what they consider unsustainable trails, but the only trails that are being built right now are flowier trails with an emphasis on speed and jumps. The natural, eroded, rooty trails the area is known for are being phased out, the character of the forest is being lost. It's also making mountain bikers look bad, because hikers are complaining about the way things are as well and blaming us, like we're the ones making the decisions (we're not) and the changes represent all mountain bikers (they don't). Unlike districts further north, we can't build anything steep either, legally anyway and a lot of the rogue trailbuilding is steeper and more natural.
OTOH, though, I don't know what choice we have. A lot of the work is being done to protect the river, which feeds a local watershed and has sensitive habitats. I regret that has to be fixed sometimes, but it does, however it feels like some of the character can be kept without losing the whole thing and the ones that are being nuked for "sustainability" instead of environmental impact, like Black Mountain, could be kept closer to their original form.
This all leads to rogue trailbuilding and poaching. I don't think either is the right approach, but I understand why people do it, it feels like it's becoming one of the only ways to experience riding here the way it was years ago.
BMA knows that the needs of the community are not being met in Boulder County and we have been saying this for years, and we said it to BHA and CPW about this latest memo. If you have ideas on how to get the Boulder Ranger District to move forward with anything when it's missing half it's staff position, can't hire anyone and doesn't have any capacity beyond literally fighting fires, constructive feedback is always welcome.
However:
www.pinkbike.com/news/mountain-biker-in-spain-shot-after-being-mistaken-for-a-rabbit.html
Answer: all of them are loons, but I like picking on eMTB guys, especially in absence of roadies and/or e-roadies.
It's aggressive rhetoric like this from groups that think they are the only ones with a right to the forest, that encourages their more extreme and aggressive members to put nails all over trails, or install clotheslines between trees.
And then we will kill them with guns.
Just don't feel.the need to still be talking about it
For a bit of context it is worth considering the Colorado situation in particular. Folks who have lived here for any significant amount of time have had the pleasure of watching a state’s population literally double. It’s an amazing state with vast amounts of public lands and it’s no wonder so many people have chosen to live here, but I can assure you that the amount of legal access to said public lands has increased only marginally while the population has boomed. To make matters worse the pandemic really sent crowds, especially along the front range, into the stratosphere. Trail head parking can be a serious issue, with county governments posting helpful signage suggesting using Uber and Lyft to avoid congestion at popular destinations (Jefferson County has posted the signs at white ranch; it’s not an exaggeration).
With regards to mountain biking specifically, when we do get new trails, with exceptions they have tended to be extremely disappointing; switchbacking back down slopes, smoothed into oblivion, with stupid fake rock gardens built as option lines. Often we get re-routes or re built trails that are built with very low average grades and often described as ‘rides great in either direction’.
With all that said, it is worth noting that we live in an arid region, prone to extreme weather events. The erosion that can happen here has to be seen to be believed. And while it is certainly changing, the traditional mountain bike culture here is not especially gravity based. This isn’t the Pacific Northwest. It definitely isn’t British Columbia.
All of this is to say I think this particular development is especially sensitive to the locals in question. I am 43. I have spent the majority of my life at this point climbing rocks, chasing summits and riding mountain bikes. But in the last 3 weeks I also spent a weekend with a friend tracking moose here in the gore range, and a day on hiking only trails with my wife. As people who ‘need’ public lands to recreate, I have always thought that hikers, backpackers, hunters, fishers, climbers, mountain bikers and atv riders should really be working together instead of in opposition. It’s busy as hell out there, but we are still far from a majority. For example there are 60,000 odd people paying a literal shit ton of money to watch the Broncos play in downtown Denver tonight, with millions more who have planned their entire day around watching the game on TV.
It would be cool if BHA and a legitimately ‘progressive’ local mountain bike organization could work together on balancing the use, development, and conservation of the natural resources we all rely on for having fun when we aren’t working. The off road folks and the birdwatchers should be at the table as well. At this point I don’t have a lot of optimism, but given the world we live in one has to hang on to some hope.
As a side note if any other Coloradans have fantasized about starting a serious mountain bike advocacy organization, I would love to hear that I am not alone.
On the other hand, the majority of trail users here in CO would find it hard to imagine the fact that back in Sussex almost all the land is in private ownership, but we had an absolute right of access across the fields and through the woods on Public Rights of Way. The resources were tiny in comparison, but were managed in such a way that regular people in a very densely populated place had access to the outdoors (albeit highly regulated access).
I do have optimism about the situation in CO - all levels of government up to and including the state government are aware of the value placed on access to trails by citizens, and of how attractive a trail network is for visitors. Voters in even the most tax-averse districts will sometimes fund land acquisitions (e.g. Jefferson County); new trail networks are being built (e.g. Floyd Hill, Maryland Mountain); existing trail networks are being maintained; busy trail networks are being thoughtfully managed to balance the demands of different user groups (e.g. directional biking only on some trails in Apex on even days).
If you live on the front range and have more time, you can take a trip up to the high country or over to the western slope and ride on any sort of trail you want from high alpine to desert, on USFS or BLM land. You can choose to go to a famous honeypot destination (like the ones I read about in MBUK in muddy Sussex) and share it with others, or you can pick somewhere less obvious and see nobody. You can go to one of the lift accessed bike parks if that's your thing (not mine). If you have the time and inclination you could even find somewhere quiet to build an illegal trail.
Nothing real is perfect, but mountain bikers in CO have it pretty f*cking good.
Therefore, we should put a bounty out for any human trespassing in any wooded area....think of the aminals!
Or look at Baltimore, they have processors (that’s the people that butchers your deer for you and makes your sausage etc if you can’t/don’t) just for dropping off your deer to donate to feed the homeless.
But hey, twist it to your narrative.
To question BHAs commitment to conservation is to question the entire North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
They conduct annual surveys to determine who makes up their membership base and where to focus their efforts: www.backcountryhunters.org/bha_s_member_survey_2022_results
BHA is not looking to limit access to public lands for any other user group, but are only promoting responsible public land use management while addressing the needs of wildlife. In this instance illegal trails compress elk habitat in a an area of special importance. Public lands are for everyone, but it is everyone's responsibility to respect and take care of those lands.
I sympathize for Colorado MTBers complaining that legal trails are too tame and boring, as that is an issue we face in my own community. We have had success locally with our awesome bike advocacy group who has collaborated with local land trusts and conservation groups to build fully featured and fun trails on private lands on lands within conservation easements. The answer to is get involved and focus your efforts locally. Join a group, collaborate with other stakeholders, and be the change you want to see on the trail!
This statement from them suggests that they are not about sharing access to public lands: www.backcountryhunters.org/bha_statement_on_mountain_bikes_in_wilderness
To anyone: you can research their public statements, their 'talking points' to members on land use/travel management plans and areas where they've been influential in shutting down motorized single track. Let their actions speak for themselves.
Complete garbage.
"let's hike it when we go hunting, easier access that way"
Like most places, 95% of our trails were built by volunteers and were never fully legal until legitimized by either the State or the landowner and a trail org working together. Many of our trails are still rogue "don't ask don't tell" style trails.
It seems that unfortunately given the rise in popularity of mountain biking and the proliferation of trails over the years that mountain bikers are in fact starting to create noticeable social and environmental impacts.
In a vacuum, one trail may not seem like it has much impact, but taken all together studies clearly show that recreational trails of any kind do have some sort of impact on wildlife. Clearly these impacts are extremely site specific and there is a balance to be had between recreational needs and environmental needs.
What I see happening in my community (just like what is happening here) is that "conservationists" are pitted against "recreationalists" and the most extreme/loudest voices dominate the conversation.
In reality, the two groups have so much more in common that different and often do work in tandem. Whenever this type of thing comes up, I urge folks to remind everyone that recreation and conservation go hand in hand. The more people who love the woods, the more people who want to save and preserve the woods. We also can't love them to death.
I guess it is boring/unrealistic to ask for nuance and civility in these days, but so it goes.
This argument is kinda dumb when you compare mountainbiking to anything. It's trails in a forest. Least impact you can have. Ski hills cut massive amound of woods. Golf courses take up massive amounts of space. Cities. Cars. Plastic. Global warming. And you are complaining about trails?
Trail building/riding and hunting would both be more “exciting” with them around.
...although I'm fine with this targeting those "hard enduro" moto riders that think a single track or game trail is open season for them to get all Redbull with their GoPro and Husqvarna, or worse, Suron
Also for one to collect the bounty the USFS would have to actually try and convict the person.
Do I need a second car to shuttle?
Now ive heard it all...
Actually f*ck hunters
While we're at it, ban lead shot!
www.durangotelegraph.com/news/top-stories/slippery-slope
Wolves are cool and I want thek to exist. They also are an issue for ranchers.
Is it really that hard to avoid making illegal trails? I've somehow managed to avoid doing so up to this point in my life. Granted, I'm old and MTB media used take pains to encourage better trail use (no skidding, no going off trail, etc) than they do these days.